Re: [sage-devel] Whats the plan for random doctests with floating point numbers?

2021-12-29 Thread Kwankyu Lee
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 8:40:35 AM UTC+9 dmo...@deductivepress.ca wrote: > In the long run, we want to fix the doctests so they always pass (as > described in the previous comment). > > However, in the short run, I think it is fine to add > > set_random_seed(0) # failed doctest - see

Re: [sage-devel] Whats the plan for random doctests with floating point numbers?

2021-12-29 Thread dmo...@deductivepress.ca
In the long run, we want to fix the doctests so they always pass (as described in the previous comment). However, in the short run, I think it is fine to add set_random_seed(0) # failed doctest - see trac ticket n where the description of ticket n says it is adding `set_random_seed`

Re: [sage-devel] Whats the plan for random doctests with floating point numbers?

2021-12-29 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Wed, 2021-12-29 at 13:35 -0800, Volker Braun wrote: > There are doctests of the form > > sage: x = random_value() > sage: abs(floating_point_computation(x) - exact_value(x)) < tolerance > True > > but every floating point computation has SOME values where it is >

[sage-devel] Whats the plan for random doctests with floating point numbers?

2021-12-29 Thread Volker Braun
There are doctests of the form sage: x = random_value() sage: abs(floating_point_computation(x) - exact_value(x)) < tolerance True but every floating point computation has SOME values where it is ill-conditioned. I'm finding a steady trickle of test failures due to the (now)

[sage-devel] Re: OM representation of ideals in function fields

2021-12-29 Thread Nils Bruin
I don't think this project resulted in many code commits directly (for one thing, no tickets are mentioned), but it did lead to a good evaluation of what infrastructure is necessary to support such implementations, and the situation for that has improved significantly. I think Magma has since

[sage-devel] OM representation of ideals in function fields

2021-12-29 Thread Maxime Bombar
Hello everyone, I would be very interested by the implementation of Montes algorithm and OM representation of prime ideals in global function fields claimed here : https://wiki.sagemath.org/days86.5 Do you know how far has it got ? Best, -- Maxime Bombar -- You received this message

Re: [sage-devel] Adding LRS Library On SageMath

2021-12-29 Thread Advay Goel
Regarding the actual library itself, is that already on my system or will I have to download lrslib again? On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 6:58:49 AM UTC-5 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 5:12 AM Advay Goel wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I use macOS Big Sur Version 11.1,

[sage-devel] Re: Demote SageTeX to an optional package?

2021-12-29 Thread mmarco
FWIW, we are working on a python package that partially overlaps sagetex functionality: https://framagit.org/pang/texsurgery El lunes, 6 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:06:47 UTC+1, Matthias Koeppe escribió: > -1 on demoting it from standard. It's tiny, and installing it as part of > the

Re: [sage-devel] Adding LRS Library On SageMath

2021-12-29 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 5:12 AM Advay Goel wrote: > > Hi All, > > I use macOS Big Sur Version 11.1, and need to use the LRS Library for a > project: > > def getVolume(self,eng='lrs'): """ needs Sage 5.9 for 'lrs' engine """ return > self.poly.volume(engine=eng)*factorial(self.poly.dim()) > >